metro article on helmets

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 1836268, member: 45"]Ah, but in the poster's next comment he suggested that it's nobody's business what others do. Aren't you saying otherwise here?[/quote]

Different reply to to a different question

 

[ufkacbln]

Oh I don't know. People often get over confident with bold tyres.

You mean they boldly go where no man has gone before?

 

[ufkacbln]

bold tyres or legal tyres would make no difference on ice. Same result.

Really?

An "icy road" is not the same thing as driving on ice, the ice is usually patchy and saving tread will make a difference overall. A legal tyre will grip on less icy and on non icy stretches, the bald ones will not

The driver is unable to react quickly because he is under the influence of drink, and the the same on all road surface with a bald and a legal tyre?

Methinks that the combination is lethal and shows the exact point that although there is no intention to kill or maim they have unequivocally chosen to raise the likelihood that they will

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 1838721, member: 45"]...which should give you a clearer understanding of where he's coming from.[/quote]

The post I replied to is quite clear. Wear a helmet or you will be awfully injured and that is sufficient evidence for them to impose their choice on others.... of course he has the right to decide for his children, but you cannot both not care what others do, AND then insist that another person wears a helmet.

My post is still absolutely valid... if his neighbour had been one of the many pedestrians who suffer serrious head injuries every year, would they be wearing a helmet when walking and enforcing that decision on his children.

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 1838910, member: 45"]You might want to read the post again then.[/quote]

Ok then:

One of my mother-in-law's neighbours was a keen cyclist until he fell off his bike 20 years ago. Due to the head injury he received (no helmet), he hasn't been able to walk or talk since.

Anecdotal evidence saying that a cyclist has suffered a serious head injury and implying that lack of helmet contributed

A helmet may or may not be enough to protect you from serious injury, but the possibility of it helping is enough of a reason for me to wear one, and to insist that my children do too.

Statement that that is sufficient evidence for the poster to wear a helmet and insist that his children do so


All seems quite clear to me, I cannot see any hidden wisdom in there!


The second post:

I am indeed. Despite me having jumped in at the deep end of an internet argument, I'm not really taking sides for or against, I'm just stating what I do, and my reasons for doing so.

Reinforces that the anecdotal evidence is sufficient evidence

Other cyclists can wear helmets, cowboy hats, bearskins, pickelhaube, feather bonnets, deerstalkers, any other type of headgear, or go bareheaded if they so desire. It's their own choice, and as such none of my business.

Is still in conflict with the original post which states he is enforcing his decision on his children

Again no hidden wisdom!

 

[tt123]

Other cyclists can wear helmets, cowboy hats, bearskins, pickelhaube, feather bonnets, deerstalkers, any other type of headgear, or go bareheaded if they so desire. It's their own choice, and as such none of my business.

In keeping with my quoted post above: How is MY decision about what I and MY children do, any of YOUR business?

 

[Andrew_Culture]

Everyone should make their own damned decision!

I wear a helmet because a head trauma I received as a teenager has made me very protective of the tiny bit of intelligence I have left.

I'd also like to think that even if wearing a helmet gives me 0.00001% chance of not depriving my daughter of her daddy then it's worth wearing one.

If nothing else I don't want to experience what this friend is still going through lawsie.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/importance-of-bike-helmets-jamies-story.html?m=1

 

[tt123]

[QUOTE 1839365, member: 45"]Your second quote shows that the assumption you've made from the first is wrong.

A statement is not an implication. You're choosing which conflicts to pick up on and which to ignore.[/quote]

Eh?

 

[ufkacbln]

In keeping with my quoted post above: How is MY decision about what I and MY children do, any of YOUR business?

Perhaps as soon as you put it up on a public forum as a discussion point?

 

[Red Light]

Everyone should make their own damned decision!

I wear a helmet because a head trauma I received as a teenager has made me very protective of the tiny bit of intelligence I have left.

I'd also like to think that even if wearing a helmet gives me 0.00001% chance of not depriving my daughter of her daddy then it's worth wearing one.

If nothing else I don't want to experience what this friend is still going through lawsie.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/importance-of-bike-helmets-jamies-story.html?m=1

Fully respect your decision but its justification just raises the often raised question. It is much more likely that a head injury from a trip or fall on the streets or in the home or from a collision while driving your car would deprive your daughter of her daddy and yet you don't think it worth wearing one then. Its a helmet conundrum that never seems to be answered.

 

[ufkacbln]

Fully respect your decision but its justification just raises the often raised question. It is much more likely that a head injury from a trip or fall on the streets or in the home or from a collision while driving your car would deprive your daughter of her daddy and yet you don't think it worth wearing one then. Its a helmet conundrum that never seems to be answered.

Because it cannot be answered!

To state that a single incident is sufficient "evidence" to justify a decision, yet discount a similar incident because it does not fit your agenda is to admit hypocrisy.

 

[Andrew_Culture]

True. True. I also work in an engineering firm, that forces me to be very risk-aware, I guess I'm the same on bike.

Wearing a helmet wouldn't have helped when I fell out of a moving car at 50mph and landed on my face, but wearing a helmet when I'm out on my bike makes me feel a little bit assured that I'm doing at least something to mitigate risk, it eases flashbacks to the very visceral memories of the bloodied mess I was and the months and months of outpatient hell that my own stupidity caused

 

[Red Light]

True. True. I also work in an engineering firm, that forces me to be very risk-aware, I guess I'm the same on bike.

Wearing a helmet wouldn't have helped when I fell out of a moving car at 50mph and landed on my face, but wearing a helmet when I'm out on my bike makes me feel a little bit assured that I'm doing at least something to mitigate risk, it eases flashbacks to the very visceral memories of the bloodied mess I was and the months and months of outpatient hell that my own stupidity caused

Now I would say that that is a totally understandable rationale but your previous explanation wasn't

 

[Andrew_Culture]

In the glorious high definition focussed glow of my own hindsight I entirely agree.

 

[Andrew_Culture]

Because it cannot be answered!

To state that a single incident is sufficient "evidence" to justify a decision, yet discount a similar incident because it does not fit your agenda is to admit hypocrisy.

If you're referring to my post I'd claim low intellect and an unfamiliarity with making statements I'm prepared to staunchly stick to as my own weak defense.

Changing ones opinions shows a willingness to learn and improve